The laws and constants are secondary. It are particles, their interactions, and their collective behaviors, that matter. Democritus told us that already. — EugeneW
Well, not to give the game away too much... — Amity
What philosophers are said to do.
No. Not navel-gazing.
'Willy-waving' :blush: — Amity
Where do the laws of nature or the constants of nature fit into your notion of reality as mereologically the sum of all things? — apokrisis
Aren’t you looking at this from the point of view of the current “world of medium sized dry goods”, whereas physics suggests that laws and constants - the absolutely general - are all that constitute our reality at its beginning? — apokrisis
So therefore reality is the wholeness of every thing, because - as you say - it aint’t the mereological sum?
And thus reality speaks to the maximally general. Which in physics-speak is laws and constants. — apokrisis
Well physics does divide reality - as the bounding wholeness of concrete actuality - into the two parts of laws and constants. — apokrisis
To fix that dichotomy, you then need a systems logic that can find the unity in such opposites — apokrisis
Do we see things differently according to a priori categories or did difference become a category as the result of seeing differences? Kant claims the former. This is not the prevailing view today. — Fooloso4
That supports my point. They are not invariant a priori categories. Or, more generally, it is not the case that thinking and being are the same if thinking leads to the denial of change. — Fooloso4
The relationship between Parmenides and Heraclitus is an open question. Some maintain that Heraclitus was responding to Parmenides and others that Parmenides was responding to Heraclitus. — Fooloso4
It not that he did not realize it, he just thought that becoming is a false opinion. His monastic thinking led him to reject change and difference. This is a good example of why we should not accept the premise that thinking and being are the same. — Fooloso4
Feuerbach suggests (as I read him), it's merely an anthropocentric bias (blindspot) to reify – project, literalize – our thoughts (e.g. distinctions) and then thereby conclude 'maps = territory' (even as maps are made by / from aspects of the territory and used to make explicit other aspects – yet never 'the whole' – of the territory). :chin: — 180 Proof
You have got this backwards. They do not conform to a priori categories of thought. It is, rather, that thought was forced to change to accomodate what did not fit existing categories. — Fooloso4
Parmenides "categories of thought" exclude change. — Fooloso4
How about starting a war for resources (the usual reason). They said it was the main reason, or one of them, I believe? You would have to do a better job of explaining why this is. I am not saying people are not driven to violence due to some ‘sexual malfunction’ or some such thing, just that I don’t see how it can be viewed as anything like a main reason for driving someone into war/violence.
I am open to a reasoned account of why this may be so (specifically as an item that majorly entwined with war/violence). — I like sushi
If your interest is in being argumentative, I am not interested. If your interest is in trying to understand views that differ from your own then you should begin by not misrepresenting what I have said — Fooloso4
What is at issue is not the division but that there are these very small and very large things that were unknown and unthought. — Fooloso4
Thinking presuppose being like tides presuppose the ocean – nonidentity (e.g. Adorno, Levinas, Zapffe, Rosset, Meillasoux, Brassier). — 180 Proof
"What is" is the horizon – unthought – of thought. In other words, thinking does not include, or reach, the greatest (final) number. — 180 Proof
The divisions are a way of referring to things that existed prior to anyone thinking such things exist. — Fooloso4
The wheel is a human invention, the micro and macroscopic world is not. — Fooloso4
The problem is not with thinking that which is not, although more on that below, but with the assumption that what is is limited by what is thought. Until quite recently what was thought did not include quantum physics or astrophysics. We still to understand them and there may be things beyond our capacities of understanding.
As to non-being and indeterminacy see this discussion of Plato's metaphysics: — Fooloso4
Based on what exactly? That sounds utterly ridiculous and I don’t really understand the obsession with the idea that sexual relations are somehow inextricably entwined with violence/war. — I like sushi
It is the height of human hubris and folly to think that what is, was, and will be are limited by what we can think or comprehend or given and account of. — Fooloso4
I used to think exactly that but I have gradually become less convinced that extinction or even dwindling are anywhere near. — Cuthbert
That was 2016 - then Me Too, then Sarah Everard. The expression of fear is getting more confident but I don't see the fear getting any less, because of the 'subterranean norms' and everyday sexism. — Cuthbert
:up: Elementary Particles was quite good. Sex is like money: some people have a lot of it, most people have some but nothing to brag about, and some don't have any.
But that's about where the similarities end, since nobody deserves sex like how they deserve money (or the means to afford life requirements) — _db
It's about maintenance of perpetual power by a certain kind of regressive, repressive male, no?
I know that's a simplification but a useful start to another necessary discussion, perhaps... — Amity
Yes. I wonder which way round the explanation goes. I mean, do men get the opportunity to be nasty because they have power or do they maintain power on account of being already nasty? Well, both, probably. In a matriarchal society would women end up being the nasty ones on account of having power or would the world be kinder on account of women being in charge? — Cuthbert
Also, I want to clarify that declaring a war is different from self-defense. If a country is invading another country, the self-defending country should not be considered as declaring war. — Howard
Oxford philosopher Amia Srinivasan has written about this: — Olivier5
Isn't this precisely the problem? They totally internalize the gaming pressure AND the rules saying which kinda girl/boy is popular and hence likeable by all, and which type of girls/boys is NOT popular hence NOT likeable by all. There's such a thing as a 'canon of beauty', everywhere, but they sacralized it. They carve it into the bloody stone that their brain is made of. — Olivier5
Another 'theory' is that of Houlebeck in his Elementary Particles: sexual liberation during the 60's and 70's led to high sexual competition between males, and between females, with the most attractive people screwing all their content and less attractive folks living in eternel sexual misery. Freedom leads to inequality between the haves and the haves not, now applied to sex as well. — Olivier5
Yes, that's the thesis of The Mass Psychology of Fascism. Interesting note. — Olivier5
↪Amity Yes. This view is in contrast with Freud's, who frequently spoke of how repressed sexual energy can be turned into socially acceptable creativity and hard work through 'sublimation'. Reich says: "it can also be turned into hatred". He posited that as an explanation for the rise of fascism in the 1920s. I read the book a long time ago and was left unconvinced that Reich 'nailed' it. — Olivier5
Thus, all the question-begging woo-of-the-gaps sophistry called to account (not "trolled") — 180 Proof
My practical question for this thread, is why do Anti-Metaphysics Trolls, waste their valuable on-line time, trying to defeat something that they assume to be already dead, and although perhaps a ghostly nuisance, cannot by their definition, make any difference in the Real world? Metaphysical speculators are merely harmless drudges . . . No? — Gnomon
Men objectify women -> women resent this objectification -> women take revenge on men by frustrating the sexual desires of men -> men resent this frustration -> men take revenge on women by raping them, or raping surrogates via porn. — _db
Sometimes, in order to commit or threaten violence against someone a perpetrator needs to first be persuaded that the victim deserves it. They are said to have "asked for it", as the saying goes, as if a violent act against another person is a kind of polite concession. The instinct for justice is so strong that the perpetrator cannot live with himself having committed such a wrong. — Cuthbert
The roots of violence in the psyche of the perpetrator are thereby ignored, all attention now focussing on the victim and what she "must have done" to provoke the response. This is all neatly summed up in the expression 'victim-blaming'. — Cuthbert
Sigh. Tobias this thread is a prime example. — Benkei
That should cover the rest of your comments. And Rousseau/ Christian and me are antithetical to one another. I formulate my views on data and philosophy. — Garrett Travers
I myself do not define children as loving, I said they areby nature loving, explorative, game generating, and otherwise not miserbale. An observation born out by data across multiple studies - that was a broad analysis I sent you - and one that, for the vast majority of children, only differs among those with abusive parents. Which is of course, an ethical violation for all the same reasons. — Garrett Travers
And Rousseau/ Christian and me are antithetical to one another. I formulate my views on data and philosophy. — Garrett Travers
Then you would see how such advice doesn't apply to my research-based analysis above. — Garrett Travers
I didn't say they did, I never even implied. Look man, I'm not these mystic chumps on this website, dude. If you're going to engage with me on here, I'm going to need you to read what I say and the research I post. — Garrett Travers
Is this really a conclusion you've drawn...? C'mon man, when have you ever heard of a child killing anyone in joyous laughter? And if you to happen to find me an abberation of such nature, describe to me the details of where the child comes from, and I'll show you who the real killer is. — Garrett Travers
You understand? — Garrett Travers
Children are happy, exploratory, game-organizing for play, and very deeply loving by nature. I've never known of any exceptions to this. — Garrett Travers
There is. — Changeling
Sam26 Tobias agree? — Changeling
The difference in harm in this case is due to whatever trauma was inflicted by being robbed. So the examples aren’t comparable, imo. Maybe say a hacker takes money from your account and makes it seem like it’s legitimate taxation. In this case the harm is equal, because it’s the same amount of money you’re missing, right? — Pinprick
If the act were “good” then no harm would come from doing it indefinitely. — Pinprick
Yeah, criteria that actually makes a difference like education, skill level, competence, etc. — Pinprick
Maybe the president selects a handful of candidates that are diverse and then the senate narrows it down from there? — Pinprick
Being discriminated against doesn’t only harm you if you’re part of a marginalized group. — Pinprick
I don’t see how it’s ethical to give an advantage to someone because of their race. Isn’t that how races became disadvantaged in the first place? White people were given advantages because they were white. — Pinprick